Key result
Fractional flow reserve is a valuable tool for evaluating intermediate coronary lesions, but accurate measurement requires maximal hyperemia and consideration of right atrial pressure and serial stenoses.
This review highlights the practical utility, procedural issues, and potential pitfalls of using fractional flow reserve (FFR) in clinical practice.
FFR demands maximal hyperemia and stenosis consideration; leaves open optimal protocols for routine practice.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is increasingly used to evaluate the functional significance of epicardial coronary disease. When compared with non-invasive techniques this index has superior sensitivity and specificity, is largely independent of prevailing haemodynamic conditions and has an unequivocal normal value. Furthermore, it can be used at the time of invasive coronary assessment. FFR measurements are invaluable for evaluation of intermediate coronary lesions but clinical decisions must be based on accurate measurements and an understanding of the limitations of the data supporting its use. This article identifies procedural and clinical issues pertaining to measurement of FFR and identifies potential pitfalls and situations where interpretation can be difficult; for example, the presence of serial stenoses and left main stem disease, its use in specific conditions such as diffuse epicardial disease, microvascular abnormalities, left ventricular dysfunction and acute coronary syndromes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blows et al. (2006) conducted a review in Epicardial coronary disease. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement was evaluated. Fractional flow reserve is a valuable tool for evaluating intermediate coronary lesions, but accurate measurement requires maximal hyperemia and consideration of right atrial pressure and serial stenoses.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: